Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[JayUtah]

I disagree.

You're wrong.

If there is an issue of missing information, then you can still go ahead and answer the problem by stating your assumptions.

No, not in licensed engineering. This is not your field, Vixen.

Thus, say you are sitting an exam and you've made a mess of the maths, you can still get credit...

Real life is not a math test, Vixen. We don't work according to "credit." You're either right, or you lose your license and possibly go to jail.

In the case of the JAIC...

And now galloping off on a new tangent to escape your dreadful errors.

 

[Vixen]

Is that relevant to investigating the sinking of ships?



You've made dozens of claims that are at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods.



Will you then defer to those who are?

Claim you.

I was reporting a current event.

The only person demanding 'only licensed engineers allowed' is you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There will always be a momentary pause before a ship turns over, due to resistance of the water from the opposite direction.

where are you getting that from?
Did you just make it up?

What did Sheen say? "One minute". Oceanos, weighed down by water in its hull, took nine minutes, after 18 hours of listing heavily to starboard.

and for all of those hours it was flooding and sinking.

 

[Vixen]

Nope, it isnt. You got some childhood physics education. You told us so. Or were you lying about that, once again?

<YAWN>

 

[JayUtah]

Claim you.

No, it's been pointed out repeatedly.

I was reporting a current event.

You've been spinning tall tales about Russian secret agents and submarines leaving tracks on the ocean floor and mini subs shooting mini-torpoedoes. None of which you know the slightest things about.

The only person demanding 'only licensed engineers allowed' is you.

Not my claim. But when you make claims that require expertise to get right, and you don't have the expertise, you lose the point. As I wrote at some length not too long ago, you're all about expertise when you think you have it, or when you think others support you. When expertise challenges your belief, you can't run away from it fast enough.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Claim you.

I was reporting a current event.

The only person demanding 'only licensed engineers allowed' is you.

Why do you persist in this lie?

 

[Vixen]

No problem, then. If you want to support your claim that Estonia would have been expected to invert in the generally accepted scenario (and thus, that it's suspicious she didn't do so), all you have to do is show your calculations of the center of gravity, the center of buoyancy, and the other relevant factors besides those two that you have not listed or mentioned, for Estonia throughout the capsize, and how those factors suggest some particular outcome, based on your knowledge of the set rules.

The JAIC itself says that the ship could not have capsized by seawater flooding the car deck alone.

 

[JayUtah]

<YAWN>

Sorry the topic bores you. When others pointed out that a normal U.K. student would receive about that much instruction in physics before going to college, you were very indigent and assured us that your physics education was more specialized and valuable than that, and that you did well as a student as judged by your teachers.

But your readers have to reconcile that with the fact that you are abjectly ignorant in nearly all matters of physics that you've evoked in your arguments. They have to figure out why someone who has supposedly had a specialized education in physics is so very poor at it. The easiest thing to believe is that you've overstated your credentials.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Tax, like law*, is the one thing you do have to learn off by heart, but other things, such as centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy follow set rules which can be calculated just by knowing the rules.

What rules?
How do you calculate 'centre of gravity' and 'buoyancy' for a dynamic situation like a flooding ship?
What other factors do you think need to be considered?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, did you or did you not claim to be a scientist? Are you still claiming that you are one?

Stop avoiding the question.

Stop avoiding the question Vixen. It's two yes or no questions.

 

[Vixen]

Then why are you so bad at science? I say that not as a taunt; you've demonstrated no aptitude whatsoever for science, and especially for physics. Similarly you claimed to have made a special study of psychology, such that you were relevantly employed following college. Yet you stumble over the standard model of memory. All this claimed knowledge, regardless of whether it can be objectively titled "expertise," seems to avail you nothing. Why do you keep insinuating knowledge you can't demonstrate you have? What role does that play in "reporting current events?" How does that help the Estonia survivors?

Your behavior is inconsistent with your stated purpose. Your behavior is more consistent with ego reinforcement. And you seem to be getting mad that others won't help.

Do you think you could stick to the topic of the thread?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have worked under the Proceeds of Crime Act to help recoup hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

I do not make false claims, nor have I alternatively, claimed to be an expert in marine matters.

Which has what to do with forensic engineering?

 

[Vixen]

where are you getting that from?
Did you just make it up?
and for all of those hours it was flooding and sinking.

Exactly, which is why it didn't turn turtle in one minute, like the The Herald of Free Enterprise.

 

[Vixen]

No, it's been pointed out repeatedly.



You've been spinning tall tales about Russian secret agents and submarines leaving tracks on the ocean floor and mini subs shooting mini-torpoedoes. None of which you know the slightest things about.



Not my claim. But when you make claims that require expertise to get right, and you don't have the expertise, you lose the point. As I wrote at some length not too long ago, you're all about expertise when you think you have it, or when you think others support you. When expertise challenges your belief, you can't run away from it fast enough.

So you keep saying.

 

[JayUtah]

The only person demanding 'only licensed engineers allowed' is you.

I'm going to elaborate on this. I'm telling you, as a licensed professional, what standards prevail in my field. I've been a successful practitioner of it for nearly 30 years. You're telling me how people in my profession should approach a problem. And your basis for that lecture is you as a schoolgirl taking math tests and hoping for a good score despite lack of mastery of the material.

Does it not enter your mind how astonishingly arrogant that is? I raise this as indicative of your entire approach in this thread. Your arguments are based on nothing more substantial than your ignorant say-so, and you literally seem to think others should respect those arguments without questioning their obviously self-serving and flimsy basis.

You really aren't the teacher here, Vixen. And if the labors of others in this thread are any indication, you don't hold much promise as a bright student either. How does any of this help understand better what happened to MS Estonia?

 

[Vixen]

Which has what to do with forensic engineering?

Ask the person who brought the subject up.

 

[JayUtah]

So you keep saying.

And so you keep dodging.

 

[abaddon]

I disagree. If there is an issue of missing information, then you can still go ahead and answer the problem by stating your assumptions.

Sure, on planet sausage perhaps

Thus, say you are sitting an exam and you've made a mess of the maths, you can still get credit by showing you know the method of calculation and you can do this by first stating an assumption - perhaps a made up figure because you messed up and you had no time to re-calculate your starting figure - and still get points for workings.

Can't speak for Jay, but back in my time, immediate fail. Do you really think that doctors in uni are told "meh thats close enough"? That's nuts.

This is because understanding what you are doing is probably more important than coming up with the correct answer, or just as important, as those 'problems' are often arbitary ones anyway.

Just read that again. Getting the wrong answer is just as good as getting the right answer. WTAF?

In the case of the JAIC it made the assumption that water must have flooded in at an enormous volume at great speed as the car deck filling with water even at a 40 degree list would not be enough to cause the vessel to capsize. It made the assumption that all the windows in the superstructure (decks 4 - 8_ and the dividers must have been smashed by the waves, now coming in at port (the direction the ship had now turned). However, it does not give us any of its workings of how it reckons any of this happened.

And incoherence happens. Colour me astonished.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I disagree. If there is an issue of missing information, then you can still go ahead and answer the problem by stating your assumptions.

Thus, say you are sitting an exam and you've made a mess of the maths, you can still get credit by showing you know the method of calculation and you can do this by first stating an assumption - perhaps a made up figure because you messed up and you had no time to re-calculate your starting figure - and still get points for workings.

This is because understanding what you are doing is probably more important than coming up with the correct answer, or just as important, as those 'problems' are often arbitary ones anyway.

In the case of the JAIC it made the assumption that water must have flooded in at an enormous volume at great speed as the car deck filling with water even at a 40 degree list would not be enough to cause the vessel to capsize. It made the assumption that all the windows in the superstructure (decks 4 - 8_ and the dividers must have been smashed by the waves, now coming in at port (the direction the ship had now turned). However, it does not give us any of its workings of how it reckons any of this happened.

Where does JAIC say any of this?

 

[Vixen]

I'm going to elaborate on this. I'm telling you, as a licensed professional, what standards prevail in my field. I've been a successful practitioner of it for nearly 30 years. You're telling me how people in my profession should approach a problem. And your basis for that lecture is you as a schoolgirl taking math tests and hoping for a good score despite lack of mastery of the material.

Does it not enter your mind how astonishingly arrogant that is? I raise this as indicative of your entire approach in this thread. Your arguments are based on nothing more substantial than your ignorant say-so, and you literally seem to think others should respect those arguments without questioning their obviously self-serving and flimsy basis.

You really aren't the teacher here, Vixen. And if the labors of others in this thread are any indication, you don't hold much promise as a bright student either. How does any of this help understand better what happened to MS Estonia?

Your fundamental problem here is that you think you can win an argument by browbeating.


Fact is, the sinking of the Estonia is a current affairs issue that has recently been reopened and you cannot shoo people away from asking perfectly valid questions about it.